Latest to join the cacophony of female voices demonstrating a distinct disconnect between mouth and brain is MP for West Coast GRC Foo Mee Har, who proposed that joint consent of both spouses be required when a member’s CPF withdrawal is linked to a CPF charge on the couple’s jointly owned property. She may not intend it, but a pre-nuptial agreement style arrangement will drive a wedge into any fragile marriage.
A classmate married late, so he was earning twice as much as his bride of 10 years younger when they bought their first house. His Central Provident Fund (CPF) contribution to the joint purchase was close to 80 percent of the total financing. When they upgraded and sold the first house, some clerk credited the bulk of the CPF sum withdrawn for the first purchase to his wife's account without so much as informing him. Pressed for a reason, he was told his "wife's CPF balance was so low". He left it at that, believing that married couples should not quibble over money. Thanks to the ups and downs of the private sector, his salary is now close to his wife's, who is a civil servant with an iron rice bowl and compounding annual salary adjustments of 5 percent on the average. All this talk of who actually owns his CPF monies is now driving him nuts. Why, oh why, did he not sign a pre-nuptial agreement before tying the knot, he laments.
Friends provide consolation by assuring him his better half is not the gold digger type, so there may be hope in this world after all. Then these female politicians afflicted with verbal diarrhea had to send him back into deep depression by suggesting CPF top ups for spouses and joint consents.
Posts
One fine day, someone told us our CPF monies do not actually belong to us. Apparently our Clown Prince was quite pleased with it.
ReplyDeleteAnother fine day, some other smartass commented us joint spousal consent should be required.
Looks like they are really obsessed to make it as difficult as possible to withdraw our CPF. Just wondering whether it is really true someone lost big time with our monies ?
Otherwise how to explain why they have so many restrictions while their Malaysian counterparts doesn't seem to have any of these restriction problems ?
They just "control freaks" simply put!
DeleteThey don't want you ending up being a "burden" to the state, so they cook up all the schemes to help you help yourself (from your folly???). Methinks, the less they "help" us, the better off we are because, perversely, they are helping themselves.
DeleteWrong....it is not we want them to help us...it is they "want" to help us so they can get more blood money...simple as that...
Deletebut still 60% of Singaporeans want to vote for pigs.
Deletewhat to do?
stupidity is not a successful evolutionary trait.
So it is not surprising that Singaporeans will soon be extinct and replaced by Aliens.
Not true...Singaporeans in the main are not stupid...and you cannot blame them for that..blame the ones who has the power and authority in the first place to make them "stupid"....and ignorant...blame the ones in charge for being less ethical and less of a human being too...
Deletewith idiots like tat in power...and enuf of them in charge humanity will go extinct...and good riddance to all.
Well, if you were to listen to what Victor Lye would have you believe, it is because in his view, the electorate is like si-gi-na - children who they no longer are, but a rebellious "teenagers" now. So they are the smart and wise "adults" who still know better than you lah...
DeleteActually, the more regulations they impose, all the more reason to believe the Clowns must have blown all our CPF savings on a bad investment somewhere.
ReplyDeleteIts just getting too hard to believe otherwise. Its time to shape them out and demand the hard truths.
Ahhh!
ReplyDeleteThe "Divide & Rule" technique again!
it is to stop you from taking monies out of CPF.
ReplyDeleteThe More Tweaks they are making to the CPF for whatever reasons, the More Messy it becomes for the CPF Members.
ReplyDeleteAn elected regime is a TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT, IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE ANY EXISTING FUNDAMENTAL LAW AND SCHEME NOR LEGISLATE ANY NEW FUNDAMENTAL LAWS WITHOUT REFERENDUM FROM THE PEOPLE.. THE MINIMUN CONDITION THE REGIME MUST FULFILLED TO MAKE ANY ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING LAW AND SCHEME or ADD NEW FUNDAMENTAL LAW AND SCHEME, IS THROUGH THE CONSENSUS OF THE ELECTORATES.
ANY MEDDLING TO EXISTING LAW AND SCHEME WITHOUT REFERENDUM AND CONSENSUS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ABUSE OF POWER, LIKEWISE FOR IMPLEMENTATIONS OF NEW LAW AND SCHEME.
patriot
Do you think PAP is a kueh lapis government?
Delete- Always adding more and more layers.
- Every layer costing Singaporeans more money (e.g. Senior Minister, Mentor Minister, Municipal Service Office Town Councils)
- it's always adding more layers of regulations and government
- telling Singaporeans more and more things that we cannot do on the left hand
- and then on the right hand telling Singaporeans we have a subsidy mentality ... always asking PAP government for help to do things
Funny, I thought CPF is always about however much $ the amount comes out from whoever's account will get the full money returned, first and foremost. If your friend is the one who paid out the full 80% of it, then in theory the 80% will have gone back to his account. As for the 20% + proceeds, arguably, they should be equally split/shared if your friend is caring partner who value her contributions all these years? But still, decision like this should NEVER be left to the discretion of the board. Who are they to dictate and execute the transfer to her without his consent? They are not his estate executor and he is clearly NOT dead yet. This should have been contested.
ReplyDeleteBesides, your friend could have said that there is a lumpsum of Insurance policy that will cover her if anything were to happen to him post death. But until then, whatever is your earned money is your money, "personally responsibility" speaking.
In fact, what PAP has failed and many didn't provide the retort is that IT IS precisely of personal responsibility, that the people are demanding the government to return their retirement funds when they reached the age. They don't want to be a burden to the state nor expecting the state to turn a personal responsibility into their responsibility that people are duly asking for. It is in fact a good sign where the society is heading. Yet, when it comes to withdrawal, they want to turn this into "collective responsibility"..ie not just your money. So you see, heads they win, tail you lose.
This not-so-model-wife wants to fool me, ha?
ReplyDeleteAngst or anger?
ReplyDeleteThe classmate's claim that the CPF Board credited his CPF contributions from the sale price of his house to his spouse's CPF account because her account balance was low without his permission is highly unbelievable. CPFB has no legal right to this action, whatever the reason. Take his words with a big pinch of salt.
ReplyDelete//She hastened to close the container, but the whole contents had escaped except for one item that lay at the bottom - hope (elpis). //
ReplyDeleteOthers think after all the world's evils had escaped, hope was the only thing left in Pandora's box.
It is "Hopeless" that is in the jar. While life is not hopeless, but each of us is hopelessly human.
People can keep hoping the old man will get up from his grave. A pragmatic man like him surely won't give us any false hope and will deal with hard truths the way he does best.
Bookies 100:1, so I won't put my hope on it!